The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-02-20
The OATH.

There is some speculation in the com
munity as to whether or not the nen-
po'ygamous Mormons will take the
oath provided for in the. Edmunds
Tucker bill, a. a condition to the e1er-
else of the voting franchise. Those who
have been NEST active in bringingabout
the passage of the bill, are terribly
safraid the oath will be taken, in which
event the new law, if it shall become
law, will amount TO nothing, and the
vast expenditure ef money IS well as
the labors Of the ring, be worse than
wasted. The radical Liberals, with one
4 voice, are proelajzning that it will be
impossible for the Mormons to take the
oath ,As we're they to do so they would
stultlfy themselves, and do'~iolence to
their conscieness. The newspaper or
gan of the. Liberals is also greatly exer-
cised in the matter, and has become
wonderfully ~solicitous with regard to
the conscieHces of the Saints. 1t has
daily charged for five years past that
the Mormonsado not scrupIe at perjury,
but openly *5od detiantiy swear falsely
in coutt. Eow, the paper says the
Mormons cannot take this oath, be-
cause it wou5d be perjury for them to
swear as prescribed. Al,L art O.
OF one thing we may aN'Test assured,
namely, the Mormons will not recognize
the LibersEs or their newspaper as
keepers Of the conscierces of the for
mez. They will not consent to be
guided By those who call them liars
when they speak the solemn truth, nor
by those who call conscientious swear
ing perjury. The threats, the whines
and the .coaxings of the Liberal
adventures who are now on the
anxious seat will have not the slightest
effect on the Mormons in this oath mat
ter. In This as in all other matters of
this character, the.indiYidual will be his
own judge of what he can and what he
cannot conscientIousFy do; each will
best know fer himself .whether he can
subscribe to the oath. When the oath
has been formulated mAn.nan d~'e1Inlne
vOIsaIns anything or requires any
promise So,which they subscribe;
until that time it is idle!for anybody to
say that the Mormons cannot or ought
not to take the oath.
1t is discovered, however, that there
is verygprevalent miSaF prehension as
to the provision in the bill requiring an
oath. Many seem to think that the
provisions of the Idaho test oath have
been incorporated in the bill. The Idaho
law requires the would-be voter to
swear not only that he is not biga-
mist or pGlygamist, OF believer in the
'rightfulness of the practiee,of polygamy.
but that he is not member of an asso-
citation OF society which teaches thkt it
is right to have more than one living
and undivoCced wife at the same time.
The Tucker oath does not touch the
matter of belief, confning itself to the
actions linen. In setting forth what
the oath shS,l be, the billfollows our
own Territorial statute and the Ed
munds law of 1882, down to and in
Guiding the provision that the voter
will support the Constitution of the
Unit"d States end faithfully obey the
laws thereof, aud then sets up the
further requirement that he especially
will obeg the act of Congress approved
March 2ad, 1882 1.-THE Edmunds law
and will also obey this act Quicker
Edmunds3 in respect of the crimes IN
said act defined and forbidden land that
be will not directly or indirectly aid or
abet, council or advise any other to
commit these crimes" The individual
himself, better than all others, Knows
whether he intends to obey the laws,
and whether he proposes to aid, abet,
counse! or advise others to disobey
them.